Updated: June 2018

This handout is intended for beginner‐level heralds to learn the basics of positive and helpful in‐kingdom commenting in OSCAR - learn who to contact about getting into the commentary system, best practices for commentary, and how to not be That Person in an online commentary discussion.

What is OSCAR?

OSCAR is the Online System for Commentary and Response (http://oscar.sca.org/) – the online discussion forum where most kingdoms post their kingdom‐ and sociey‐level submission levels. There are two main areas in OSCAR – the kingdom level and the society level. The rules for commenting in both areas are similar, but we’re focusing on the kindgom level for beginner heralds. (Those are found under the KloIs link at the top of OSCAR.)

Reading commentary, and commenting on submissions, is a great way for newer heralds to get a firm grip on the rules for SCA heraldry, and practice the skills that we all use with our clients. A robust commentary system benefits heralds and clients like – we can talk over and catch any mistakes with submissions before they leave the kingdom level, saving clients many months of waiting for a returned device or name. Commentary is one of those systems where it works best when everyone pitches in and helps. Even one hour a week can be incredibly useful at the kingdom level.

The rules for each kingdom’s “garden” on OSCAR will be slightly different‐ talk to your regional or principal herald if you’re at all unsure of etiquette. The basics apply across the board.

What is commenting? Why should I do it?

Submitters or their heralds send their paperwork to their kingdom Submissions Herald, who processes it into a kingdom-internal letter. That letter is then commented on by heralds from the kingdom, and other heralds across the Society. That commentary is used by the kingdom Submissions Herald to make decisions on whether to return submitted names and devices, or send them up for Laurel-level commentary and evaluation. And there the process repeats - commentary is gathered, and then the Laurel staff use that commentary to help inform their decisions.

Every month there are hundreds of submissions being processed, on dozens of letters, all across the Society. There is only so much of this commenting work that the kingdom or Laurel staff can do on their own - that's where commenting heralds enter the system. When heralds take the time to review the letters posted in OSCAR, provide their commentary, and give reasons for or against registering the submissions, that helps the kingdom and Laurel staff do their decision-making in an efficient and timely manner.

"Many hands make light work, " and commenting heralds are the lifeblood of a healthy submissions system. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of heralds all across the Known World - we can do a great deal to help our submitters and their items move through the registration process. Our contribution doesn't end when the paperwork leaves our hands, there is a lot more that we can do.

What are the basics of being a commenting herald?

Read through the admin Handbook VII.A – Commenting members of the College of Arms (http://heraldry.sca.org/admin.html#VII.A) for a good overview of the setup. Sections C and E are the most pertinent for today’s discussion.

Section C - Format of Comments

Comments should be formatted in a manner allowing their convenient use by Laurel and the members of the College of Arms. This means that all necessary information (including bibliographic citations, where necessary) must be included for each item. Misplaced commentary (for example armory commentary under name submissions) cannot be considered; if this happens, the OSCAR administrator can often move the commentary if informed of the issue in a timely manner.

Section E – Content of Comments

1. The most valuable comments consist of reasoned arguments, preferably backed by period evidence or Laurel precedent. Sources need to be clearly identified in the comment – provide links where available.
2. Personal opinions may be useful in aiding Laurel in making a decision, but are best used sparingly.
3. Personal attacks, whether on submitters, commenters or any other person, are never appropriate. This does not mean that you may not disagree with someone, even vigorously; merely that you should do so politely and with reference to issues rather than personalities.
4. While occasional humor may be appreciated, ridicule is not appropriate.

What are some general rules?

• First and foremost, invoke Wheaton’s law (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/wheatons-law) every time you post. Don’t be That Person.
• Be polite, be concise, be relevant.
  • If you're not certain how to phrase your commentary, read through a few months' worth of letters. See what the tone is that people tend to use, and imitate that "voice" when writing your own comments.
• Don’t write anything that you would not want the submitter to see. Today’s submitter is tomorrow’s herald! And in some kingdoms, commentary is public.
• Always cite your sources and reasons for what you say. You don’t need to copy/paste the entire section from SENA, but cite it.
  • “According to SENA A5E2, this device does not conflict with Anne of Green Gables “Sable, a tower Or” because of the change of the primary charge group type from a tower to a wombat.”
• Commentary is generally considered confidential unless otherwise stated. Don’t copy/paste from commentary to another discussion venue, don’t post screenshots to social media, etc.
  • In some kingdoms commentary is public, but not in all. When in doubt, treat it as confidential, and consult with your kingdom submissions herald.
• Don’t be tempted to keep your submitters up to date with a running account of commentary. Submitters always want to know how their device/name is doing, if it’s going to pass, what people are saying about it. The final decision on all submissions is made at the Laurel level, and what you see in the commentary may not actually have any relevance to the final decision.
• Did I mention Wheaton’s Law? Because that’s just as relevant at the end of commentary as at the beginning. Re‐read before you hit that “Post” button.

What do I comment on?

If you are most comfortable with either names or devices, it's fine to limit your commentary to one or the other. Begin where you are comfortable, and if in time you become more comfortable with other things, expand your commenting.

One important thing to note: We need double-checking! Just because John has commented "Links work, documents contain the information as stated" doesn't make it so. People can make mistakes, so it's very valuable to be that second set of eyes. "I concur with John - links work, documents contain the information as stated."

Names

• Check the documentation - this is incredibly important and easy to do!
  • Do the links work?
  • Do they go where the description says they should go?
  • Is the listed information found on those pages, in the format/spelling in the submission?
  • If the documentation is in a language other than English, is it translated to English? Is that translation accurate?
  • Is the documentation accurately summarized? If not, provide a summary if you're comfortable doing so.
• If there is no documentation, or if the docs don’t check out, see if you can find any!
• Check the name construction – use SENA Appendix C for the language group mixes, and Appendix A for name patterns.
• Then enter your comments, whether you found an error or not. Always cite your sources.
  • "Links work, docs check out. Name appears to be properly constructed according to SENA Appendices A and C."
  • "Link for Anne did not have that name listed in that spelling, but I found it in that spelling, language and time period in this alternate source, _______________."

Armory

• Check the blazon against the emblazon – do they match?
• Look at the charges – are they recognizable?
• Are there any unregistrable charges? http://heraldry.sca.org/armory/charges.html
• Look for basic style issues using the Insta-Boing Checklist: http://heraldry.sca.org/armory/boing.html
• Does the submitter have any other registered armory? http://oanda.sca.org/
• Is there any conflict? (This is an advanced topic covered at http://elmet.eastkingdom.org/EKHU/ )
• Then enter your comments, whether you found errors or not.
  • "I find the cat to be unrecognizable in this dormant position."
  • "I find no conflict for this design."
  • "I suggest this alternate blazon - _____________________. (cite reasons for your blazon change)"

How do I get permission to comment?

If you do not already have an account in OSCAR, you should first check your kingdom herald handbook to see if there are directions for how to become a commenting herald. If there are – follow those, you’re set. If there are not, or you can’t find any, email the principal and submissions herald of your kindgom and ask for OSCAR commenting rights. Explain who you are, what work you do, and ask if you can have permission to comment in your kingdom.

Hey! I have permissions in my kingdom, and it looks like in a lot of other kingdoms too!

Some kingdoms run open gardens, where anyone who has an OSCAR account in their home kingdom is free to come in and engage in the commentary process. If you’re not certain, read their commentary for a month, get a feel of how things work in that kingdom. And if you’re still not certain, write to the kingdom’s principal herald and say “Hey, it looks like I have permissions in your OSCAR garden, may I start commenting?”

References

• Resources for Commenting Heralds ‐ http://heraldry.sca.org/commenters.html
• SENA, Admin Handbook, Glossary of Terms, etc ‐ http://heraldry.sca.org/regs.html
• Admin Handbook VII.A – Commenting ‐ http://heraldry.sca.org/admin.html#VII.A
• Restricted/Reserved Charges - http://heraldry.sca.org/armory/charges.html
• Argent Snail’s Insta-Boing Checklist - http://heraldry.sca.org/armory/boing.html
• Ordinary and Armorial (OandA) - http://oanda.sca.org/
• Elmet Herald Educational Series (EKHU) - http://elmet.eastkingdom.org/EKHU/

Examples

Consider these examples in light of the guidelines above. Are they appropriate? Are they factual? Are they constructive?

(All examples are fictional, because commentary should be considered confidential unless explicitly stated otherwise.)

• Joke names should be banned from registration.
• Documentation confirmed, name appears correctly formed. I find no conflicts.
• This device is not in good period style.
• The posture of the horse is not specified in the blazon. I recommend this correction, "Argent, a horse passant contourny sable and on a chief sable three hawk’s bells argent."
• Did you check this for conflict before you submitted it?
• Consider the following potential conflict: Argentina. The following badge associated with this name was registered in September of 1995 (via Laurel): Azure, on a fess argent a sun in splendor Or. Important non-SCA flag. I believe see one DC for the color of the tertiary charge, but nothing else.
• I agree.
• This lion looks happy to make new friends.

_{This class was first presented at Pennsic 44 (2015.) Thanks go to Seraphina Golden Dolphin for specific suggestions on Facebook that led to the content in "What do I comment on?", which was added in 2016. Thanks go to Mark Alden for inspiring me to add the section of "Why is commenting important?" Latest update: June 2018}